William Brower v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20253747)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 2, 2026 SPR25/3747 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of William Brower appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 29, 2025, Mr. Brower requested the following: [A] [An identified individual] – January 1, 2019 to present [1] Complete employment record (hire date, promotions, assignments). [2] All citizen complaints, internal-affairs investigations, write-ups, or disciplinary actions (sustained or unsustained), including the nature of each complaint, findings, and any penalties imposed. [3] All training and certification records (annual in-service, public records law, customer service, de-escalation, handling citizen inquiries), including dates completed and any deficiencies or failures to complete required training. [4] Any performance evaluations or supervisory notes related to public-facing duties or refusal to provide information. [B] [An identified individual] – November 1-29, 2025 [5] Any request or communication (written or verbal) from the Springfield Veterans’ Services Office ([an identified individual] or any staff) asking the Springfield Police Department to call, contact, or take any action regarding [an identified individual]. [6] The exact reason(s), allegation(s), and evidence provided by Veterans’ Services for each such request. [7] All call logs, CAD notes, dispatch records, audio recordings, incident reports, and officer notes for every SPD interaction involving [an identified individual] in One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3747 Page 2 January 2, 2026 November 2025 (including the outbound intimidation call to me as well as the later November 29, 2025 inbound call to [an identified individual]). [C] Pattern of Witness Intimidation / Harassment – January 1, 2015 to present [8] Every complaint, internal-affairs investigation, citizen report, or lawsuit alleging that Springfield Police officers: - contacted, warned, threatened, visited, or otherwise harassed a civilian - at the request or direction of any city, county, or state employee (including Veterans’ Services, HR, Mayor’s office, etc.) - after the civilian filed a complaint, grievance, appeal, public-records request, or report of misconduct against that employee or department - without first conducting an independent investigation into the underlying allegation - where the action accused was witness intimidation, witness tampering, retaliation, or misuse of police authority, or the allegation could be construed as such by a reasonable individual. For each instance, include: - Date and summary of the incident - Officer(s) involved (name and rank) - Finding (sustained, unsustained, exonerated, unfounded) - Any discipline, penalty, or remedial action imposed - Any mandatory retraining or policy changes resulting from the complaint. [D] Prior Allegations of Records / Communication Denial & Supervisor Refusal – January 1, 2015 to present [9] Every complaint, IA investigation, or citizen report alleging that SPD personnel (including lieutenants, dispatchers, or officers): - refused to provide basic public-record or incident-report information (verbally or otherwise) - refused to transfer callers to a higher-ranking supervisor or captain’s voicemail when requested - claimed they were “the supervisor” when multiple higher ranks existed - engaged in unprofessional, evasive, or obstructive conduct during public inquiries… For each instance, include: - Date and summary of the incident - Officer(s) involved (name and rank) - Finding (sustained, unsustained, exonerated, unfounded) - Any discipline, penalty, or remedial action imposed

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3747 Page 3 January 2, 2026 - Any mandatory retraining or policy changes resulting from the complaint. It is my understanding that the City assigned the request reference number #25-4332. On December 15, 2025, the City provided redacted responsive records and a fee estimate of $6,278.75 to produce additional records. Subsequently on December 15, 2025, Mr. Brower modified his request as follows: Part A ([an identified individual]) – Limit to directly relevant matters only… Please produce only those complaints, internal affairs investigations, write-ups, disciplinary actions, performance evaluations, or supervisory notes (January 1, 2019 – present) that involve allegations of: - Refusal to provide public records, incident reports, or basic information to citizens - Obstructive, evasive, or unprofessional conduct during public inquiries or phone contacts - Refusal to transfer callers to higher-ranking supervisors or claiming to be the highest authority when higher ranks exist - Any police contact, call, or action taken at the request or direction of the Springfield Veterans’ Services Office (or any other city employee or department). Parts C and D (Pattern complaints, January 1, 2015 – present) – Limit to two officers only… Please limit these parts entirely to complaints, internal affairs investigations, citizen reports, or lawsuits involving only: [1] [An identified individual] [2] The officer(s) who placed the outbound call to me in November 2025 at the request of Veterans’ Services (as referenced in Part B) For these two officers only, include any allegations matching the original descriptions in Parts C and D (witness intimidation/harassment/retaliation/misuse of authority at the direction of a city employee, or refusal to provide records/supervisor transfer). The City responded on December 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3747, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3747 Page 4 January 2, 2026 form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s December 16th Response In its December 16, 2025 response, the City provided redacted responsive records and stated that additional records would be withheld under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law and the attorney-client privilege. The City also sought additional clarification of Mr. Brower’s request and stated: Your request for disciplinary records for the two unnamed officers cannot… be processed as the officers you mentioned are unknown at this time. Please clarify the names of the officers within five business days from 12/16/2025, or this portion of your request will be considered withdrawn. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Brower argued that the City’s request for clarification and its initial fee estimate are unreasonable. Mr. Brower also contested the City’s claim of attorney- client privilege and stated, “[n]o detailed privilege log or further justification was provided beyond the broad assertion.” Mr. Brower further clarified that he is not contesting the redactions to the City’s production of records at this time, but asks for all responsive records to be produced. The City subsequently “closed” the request on December 30, 2025 on its online request portal. In an email to this office on December 30, 2025, Mr. Brower objected to this closure and argued, “[t]he City never attempted to contact me by phone, or email after December 16 to follow up on clarification, payment, or anything else.” Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1)

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3747 Page 5 January 2, 2026 that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client's search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapa & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege the Supervisor of Records “shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). In its December 16, 2025 response, the City stated: Please be advised that an email communication was withheld in its entirety as it contains a confidential internal communication between counsel for the Police Department’s Internal Investigation Unit and the Springfield Police Department (client). [An identified individual] is the attorney for the Springfield Police Department’s IIU, and [four identified individuals] are all employees of the Springfield Police Department. Please refer to the privilege log for additional details. Although the City states it has provided a privilege log, based on the information provided in Mr. Brower’s appeal petition, it is unclear if the City has provided a detailed description of the record withheld, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). The City states that the responsive email communication was between a client and an attorney, however, the City must clarify whether the withheld communication was made during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such. The City must also provide further information regarding whether the communication was made in confidence and demonstrate that the privilege has not been waived. The City must clarify these matters. Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be advised that in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3747 Page 6 January 2, 2026 inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). In a recent case, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). In its response, the City is seeking clarification regarding “two unnamed officers” referenced in Mr. Brower’s request. Please be advised that it is valid for the custodian of records to suggest a “reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Consequently, Mr. Brower is encouraged to provide the City with the needed clarification regarding the records he seeks. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public records sought). In accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii), (b)(ii). In this case, where the City indicates that “… records for the two unnamed officers cannot… be processed,” I find that Mr. Brower has not provided the City with sufficient particularity required for the City to identify the documents he is seeking. Mr. Brower may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. Once Mr. Brower has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days. Modification of the Scope of the Request Additionally, where Mr. Brower modified the scope of his request on December 15, 2025, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the City’s prior December 15th fee estimate. This office encourages Mr. Brower and the City to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Any fee estimate by the City must be in compliance with the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Brower with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3747 Page 7 January 2, 2026 within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Brower may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Brower